Ableton Forum

Machinesworking wrote: I'm not sure why Ableton are ambivalent about it?

maybe it's because of the 32 bit plug-in issue...

fishmonkey wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: I'm not sure why Ableton are ambivalent about it?

maybe it's because of the 32 bit plug-in issue...

Good point.

Donnie wrote:I see much better stability with larger projects. The tradeoff is that I can't drag and drop files into live due to running 'as Administrator' in order to accommodate jBridge. I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

sure you can... you just have to _also_ run the explorer window as administrator. i use explorer++ with it set to default to run as admin (so my normal explorer windows aren't changed) and it works fine.

theophilus wrote:

Donnie wrote:I see much better stability with larger projects. The tradeoff is that I can't drag and drop files into live due to running 'as Administrator' in order to accommodate jBridge. I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

sure you can... you just have to _also_ run the explorer window as administrator. i use explorer++ with it set to default to run as admin (so my normal explorer windows aren't changed) and it works fine.

If you are right about this I will love you forever. I have been searching for months for a fix, and Ableton support just kept telling me to install codec packs (which, naturally, I had already installed). This makes sense though (finally) and I can't wait to give it a shot.

TheNobleNemesis wrote:..Except for the loading screen that is.

I've barely noticed any difference at all.

What were you expecting, other than being able to access more RAM? And why?

Since I'd read that there was potential for 64-bit to perform better (at least on Windows), I did some benchmarking between 32-bit and 64-bit Live 9 last year. I watched system metrics and recorded different things like project and app load times. I used some large-ish projects where all plugins used had both 32-bit and 64-bit versions installed (so they would load equivalently on each version of the DAW).

I found that when I went 64-bit all the way, both Live 9 launch and project load times were 9% faster, on average.

The total RAM used by Live and any loaded projects was 20% more on 64-bit than 32-bit (but, Live does give you access to more RAM overall). I don't know why this is; perhaps 64-bit binaries simply have a larger RAM footprint?

When projects were playing, the actual impact on the CPU was around 7% lower when running 64-bit all the way, although Live's CPU Load meter reported pretty much the exact same numbers for both 32-bit and 64-bit.

So, on Windows, slightly more RAM consumption (but much more potential RAM utilization), slightly faster load times, and no noticeable effect on actual DAW performance.

theophilus wrote:

Donnie wrote:I see much better stability with larger projects. The tradeoff is that I can't drag and drop files into live due to running 'as Administrator' in order to accommodate jBridge. I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

sure you can... you just have to _also_ run the explorer window as administrator. i use explorer++ with it set to default to run as admin (so my normal explorer windows aren't changed) and it works fine.

Freaking awesome! Thank you very much, good Sir! Not being able to drag'n'drop has annoyed me for months lol, I actually thought Abe had removed the feature to force us to use the new browser.

UltimateOutsider wrote: Since I'd read that there was potential for 64-bit to perform better (at least on Windows), I did some benchmarking between 32-bit and 64-bit Live 9 last year. I watched system metrics and recorded different things like project and app load times. I used some large-ish projects where all plugins used had both 32-bit and 64-bit versions installed (so they would load equivalently on each version of the DAW).

I found that when I went 64-bit all the way, both Live 9 launch and project load times were 9% faster, on average.

The total RAM used by Live and any loaded projects was 20% more on 64-bit than 32-bit (but, Live does give you access to more RAM overall). I don't know why this is; perhaps 64-bit binaries simply have a larger RAM footprint?

When projects were playing, the actual impact on the CPU was around 7% lower when running 64-bit all the way, although Live's CPU Load meter reported pretty much the exact same numbers for both 32-bit and 64-bit.

So, on Windows, slightly more RAM consumption (but much more potential RAM utilization), slightly faster load times, and no noticeable effect on actual DAW performance.

This is about the same on OSX, slightly more CPU available, slightly more RAM used.

UltimateOutsider wrote: Since I'd read that there was potential for 64-bit to perform better (at least on Windows), I did some benchmarking between 32-bit and 64-bit Live 9 last year.

Interesting. Thank you.

Am I the only one that experience significantly lower latency in 64bit? Perhaps if you have a faster machine — I only have a 2.2ghz merom Core2Duo — latency is already low?

In 32 bit Live I must use 2048 samples, in 64bit I can use as low as 64 samples.
Of course, my inferior NI Audio 2 mk2, could be a really bad influence on latency. I must get myself a real audio card soon.